For me the main issue with the petition is its credibility, given the track record of the petition's organisers. It appears to be yet another in a succession of arguably fraudulent and at best misleading petitions organised by people with clear industry PR ties. I've already posted about the previous efforts so I trust nobody will mind if I simply recycle that to save digging out all the links again.
The
Heidelberg Appeal was the brainchild of PR wizard
Michel Salomon and was associated with his PR front-group the
International Centre for Scientific Ecology An organisation which had the grand-daddy of all professional science deniers,
Dr Fred Singer on its board. Salomon is now associated with
SEPP, one of Singer’s other front groups (there is a fairly rapid turnover of these groups, as they get recognised for what they are, new ones need to be created to preserve the illusion) - a group part-funded by the Rev Sun Myung Moon.
The clever trick about the Heidelberg Appeal was to make it sufficiently vague and to include wording about ecology that many reasonable scientists endorsed, including the 49 of their 72 Nobel Laureates who also signed the
World Scientists Warning to Humanity at approximately the same time. The nature of the second document makes it very doubtful that the 49 laureates who signed both would have had much respect for the uses to which the Heidelberg Appeal was then put by the PR people who originally circulated and promoted it. Here is a collection of documents demonstrating the agendas of the PR people behind the Heidelberg Appeal -
Designer Front Group is a particularly juicy specimen. Salomon appears to have been initially funded by the tobacco industry, who were early pioneers of many of these techniques while they were trying to dispute the science that showed their products were carcinogenic.
Salomon’s associate Fred Singer was also responsible for the
Leipzig Declaration a similar use of the
third party scam, which also succeded in the purpose of getting lots of favourable press and in misleading members of the general public into thinking that numerous qualified scientists had serious doubts about climate change. This document was produced several years after the Heidelberg Appeal and it appears that real scientists had become wary of PR scams by then, because its signatories are quite as dodgy as those who signed Seitz’s
fake NAS petition
Seitz appears to have become involved in science denial in the late 70’s when he was paid to lend his scientific reputation (in nuclear physics and electronics if I recall right) to pioneering cancer disinformation campaigns run by major tobacco companies. Seitz, along with Robinson, Singer, Michaels, Soon, Balunias and the other usual suspects are also members of numerous similar industry funded PR front groups identified in this useful little page from the
Union of Concerned Scientists. For example, Soon and Balunias are employed, along with Seitz by the Exxon funded Marshall Institute who are also currently involved in a UK campaign, with the
Scientific Alliance PR front group, to cast doubts on climate science.
This then is the core of the anti-science propaganda technique, pioneered by cancer merchants but now adopted by the energy lobby. Get something superficially plausible into the popular press, endorsed by the same tiny group of PR-friendly scientists and media pundits associated with almost all of these PR front groups, which causes the public to believe incorrectly that there is significant doubt among qualified scientists about some science your clients find inconvenient. Then just keep doing it shamelessly whatever the vast majority of scientists, writing in peer-reviewed journals that the general public doesn’t read, are saying.
That way the public gets this vague sense that the science is unproven or somehow doubtful, unless they check what the vast majority of qualified scientists are saying in peer-reviewed journals. Which most of them probably don’t. They just vaguely remember hearing there were scientists who had doubts about climate change.
